Paul Zinter v. Portland State University ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 14 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL ZINTER, No. 14-35287
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02272-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 7, 2016**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Paul Zinter (“Zinter”) appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Portland State University (“PSU”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of
PSU on Zinter’s failure to accommodate claim. To establish a prima facie case of
disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) he is
disabled, (2) he is qualified, and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action
because of his disability. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d
1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001). Assuming arguendo that Zinter has shown a triable
issue of fact on the first two prongs, Zinter has not shown that there is a triable
issue of fact that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his
disability. Zinter does not dispute that he overstated his hours on his time sheet in
July. And Zinter’s own deposition testimony proves that even if Zinter could not
remember what hours he worked due to his multiple sclerosis (“MS”), he did know
that he was unsure of what hours he worked in July, yet he still certified the time
sheet as accurate. This dishonesty is why Zinter was fired.
2. To the extent that it is a separate claim, the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of PSU on Zinter’s claim that PSU failed to
engage in an interactive process with Zinter to determine if there was a reasonable
2
accommodation for him. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089
(9th Cir. 2002). The record undisputedly shows that PSU was actively engaged
with Zinter from the beginning to determine whether his misconduct was related to
his disability, and whether there was any reasonable accommodation that could
have been made. This is not a case where PSU simply terminated Zinter upon
discovering his misconduct without any dialogue at all.
3. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of
PSU on Zinter’s state law invasion of privacy claim. See Mauri v. Smith, 324 Or.
476, 483-84 (1996). The undisputed facts show that Zinter provided his medical
information in the form of correspondence from his healthcare providers to PSU at
his pre-dismissal hearing. Zinter’s own deposition testimony shows that Zinter
wanted and expected PSU to contact his healthcare providers to discuss Zinter’s
medical issues. Thus, there was no actionable intrusion into Zinter’s private affairs
that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. See id. at 484.
AFFIRMED.
3